Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 10:31:15 08/12/04
Go up one level in this thread
On August 11, 2004 at 14:53:09, José Carlos wrote:
>On August 11, 2004 at 11:05:14, Matthew Hull wrote:
>
>>On August 11, 2004 at 09:53:50, José Carlos wrote:
>>
>>>On August 10, 2004 at 23:53:09, Christophe Theron wrote:
>>>
>>>>On August 10, 2004 at 16:39:29, Peter Berger wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On August 10, 2004 at 01:17:55, Christophe Theron wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On August 09, 2004 at 23:45:28, Eugene Nalimov wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Is it really necessary to insult people who have opinion different from yours?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Thanks,
>>>>>>>Eugene
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Where is your sense of humour, Eugene?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>From time to time the 1% of Linux users I represent have a good laugh at the 95%
>>>>>>Windows users you represent.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Is this 1% hurting you as much as it hurts Gates and Ballmer? ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I understand why THEY are worried. But you?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Christophe
>>>>>
>>>>>I guess if we really knew what was going on in the basements of most Linux
>>>>>users, it would be the Windows users who would have the final laugh.
>>>>>
>>>>>It is not the windows-bashing that can become annoying, it is the propaganda and
>>>>>the misleading information.
>>>>>
>>>>>My Windows PCs don't crash - never, and I have lots of them (only Fritz will at
>>>>>times). They were also pretty easy to install and setup. I admit that I am
>>>>>probably more knowledgeable than average PC users when it is about security and
>>>>>the like, but where is the fair comparison to the average Joe Linux user who
>>>>>somehow managed to install he OS, will of course be logged on as root, with no
>>>>>password, all network services running unpatched? Maybe he doesn't exist - OK,
>>>>>but then this only means that there just *is* no average Joe linux user.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The average user will not install and configure the OS himself anyway.
>>>>
>>>>Let the average user do it with a Windows system and he ends up eaten alive by
>>>>viruses before the OS is fully installed and patched (it's not a joke, it's the
>>>>real, sad experience of using Windows today).
>>>>
>>>>Let the average user install a Linux system and he will probably manage to do
>>>>it, but several things will not work as they should (maybe the video driver will
>>>>not be optimized of the sound driver will not be installed).
>>>>
>>>>In both cases you need someone with some technical knowledge of the system. Not
>>>>necessarily an expert, just someone familiar with some common issues.
>>>>
>>>>There are many people out there making a living from that: installing,
>>>>configuring and maintaining Windows systems. If Windows was so easy to install
>>>>and manage, these people would have to find another job.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Whenever I talk with a happy Linux user with a mission I ask him a few basic
>>>>>questions on how he does this and that with his PC (concentrating on a few
>>>>>issues I had to face when I tried it myself). Once you show that you are not a
>>>>>complete ignoramus you will hear different stories - about the two weeks spent
>>>>>to get the video card running - the great features of the word processor ( once
>>>>>you studied the whole manual for a few weeks) etc.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I think you are mainly talking about things of the past here.
>>>>
>>>>The real problem today is the lack of drivers for recent hardware in Linux. Most
>>>>hardware is fully supported, but the most recent devices sometimes are not
>>>>immediately supported.
>>>>
>>>>So if you have a Linux box you must be very careful when you purchase hardware.
>>>>That's a pain, I admit it.
>>>>
>>>>Now whose fault is it? Does it mean that Linux is inferior as an Operating
>>>>System?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>My favourite still is the one user who wanted to convince me that setting up
>>>>>Linux was way easier than Windows, though he unfortunately never got the sound
>>>>>to work ( mentioned much later in discussion ;) ) .
>>>>>
>>>>>While I used to do most of my work on Unix machines including years of system
>>>>>administration, and could probably go on for some time on things that are
>>>>>superior about it, I never felt fully prepared to deal with all this hazzle at
>>>>>home in my spare time, other than for the occasional experiment.
>>>>>
>>>>>Linux has obviously improved in recent years when it is about setup, and I toy
>>>>>with the idea to give it another try, but as long as the Linux users sound like
>>>>>missionaries, it is tough to trust them too much when it is about improvements
>>>>>made. I am still under the impression that everyone who really managed to reach
>>>>>a really workable system with Linux, is soo proud of himself and his
>>>>>intelligence, that he has to tell and pray to all the world :)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>What happened for me is that I have tried Linux three times in the past. The two
>>>>first attempts were disasters and I concluded that the system was not ready for
>>>>serious use. Yes, Linux was shit AT THAT TIME.
>>>>
>>>>My third attempt turned out to be completely different: I downloaded a 200Mb
>>>>distro (over a regular phone line thru a 56K modem!) and it worked like a charm.
>>>>I could really see all the work that had been done and that it had reached an
>>>>almost mature level (that was in mid-2002).
>>>>
>>>>In January 2003 I switched to Linux on my main computer (RedHat 8 at the time),
>>>>but considered it as an experiment (I had Windows ME in the other partition).
>>>
>>> Christophe, I'm no fan of Windows or Linux. I try to be objective. By that
>>>time you mention, or some months before I think, I was sick of win98 we were
>>>using in my company back then. I installed 3 computers at my table, one with
>>>winME, one with win2k and one with Red Hat. I tried to get them three doing the
>>>things my users needed everyday. WinMe crashed like a piece of shit, Red Hat was
>>>stable, but din't support all I needed. Win2k was surprisingly stable and gave
>>>me all the tools I needed.
>>> Time has changed and linux is much more powerful by now, but NT derived
>>>kernels are totally stable. This is a fact even Linux fans must admit.
>>> Security is a different issue. Win2k (and XP) can be as safe as Linux, though
>>>it demands some more work. I've been faced to security problems in my job and I
>>>know win2k _can_ be configured to be rock solid.
>>> If you compare security effort in win2k vs configuration effort in linux, I
>>>think they're more or less even. Linux is free, that's great. Windows is user
>>>friendly, that's also important, specially in a company with a bunch of users
>>>with no computer science knowledge at all.
>>>
>>> Just my 2 cents.
>>>
>>> José C.
>>
>>
>>
>>MS products have single-handedly transformed a famous quotation and given
>>mankind's guilt complex a reprieve, for now we accept that which should never
>>have been true, that "to err is computer".
>>
>>The NT based systems are stable, no question. That acheivement is undone
>>however, by the MS network model. If the the "mother-hen" servers get wacky,
>>then my really stable XP workstation becomes a useless, aggravating piece of
>>trash. Apparently, opening a simple command window requires some kind of "by
>>your leave" from a mothership out in the twilight zone. This simple operation
>>can take up to a minute to accomplish.
>>
>>So I simply close the lid on the useless (yet stable) XP laptop, swivel my chair
>>around and continue working on my Linux workstation. It never fails me. Never.
>
> I only meant it's a tradeoff, no intention to defend windows.
> Given the performance of my workstations _and win2k servers_ and network, I
>can't think of a way to convince my boss that we should better intall linux
>workstations (note that I have some linux servers because the provide better
>functionality in some areas). My users are happy with their computers doing so
>many things for them. I just can't offer them the same in a linux workstation.
>So for some things, windows is simply a better choice. Only for _some things_.
>That's the whole point. I think Chrstophe made a mistake considering windows
>users stupid or something like that. I only wanted to show that things are not
>black or white, most of the time, they're grey.
>
> José C.
Can you tell me where exactly I said that Windows users were stupid?
Christophe
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.